Don’t shoot the moderator

With tonight’s debate, voters will have had their third chance to see Mitt Romney and Barack Obama face off. They also will have seen four different moderators. All three so far have endured their share of criticism.

Democrats complained that Jim Lehrer didn’t intervene on the president’s behalf. Obama spox Stephanie Cutter complained that Lehrer did not do his job.

Republicans also complained that CNN’s Candy Crowley served as a fact checker — and not particulary accurate fact-checker — at the last town-hall debate. Her intervention, which she says was meant not to check facts but move the debate forward, certainly put Romney off his game. As I wrote, she also passed up opportunities to put Obama under the same microscope.

That said, I do not think many of the critics understand how difficult it is to, not only moderate a debate, but also to ask good questions. For television, the challenge is different than print. Should the host press candidates when they do not fully answer questions — or let viewers watch and decide for themselves? One of the plusses of the first debate was that it encouraged the candidates to question and talk to each other.

My thinking on the subject has evolved over the years. That longer I watch these things, the more I understand how impossible it is to moderate a presidential debate to the satisfaction of all sides. Do I believe that the moderators generally have been kinder to Obama than Romney? Yes. Do I think it is partly because of the fact that he is the president (to whom deference is due) and partly because most journalists are liberals? Yes I do.